Obstructionist party stikes again

[Benjamin Franklin]

Why do you guys keep ignoring Rich? Can't you even respond to his premise?

[Reuben Gant]

Why do you guys keep ignoring Rich? Can't you even respond to his premise?

339177[/snapback]

Here is my attempt: the idea that a minority party is holding the majority party hostage is laughable. There isn't even enough strength in the Democratic party to even provide a reasonable check on majority power. The GOP needs to start looking at itself if it is talking failure of legislative initiatives, they control all three checks in federal government. They can do what ever they want. The trouble is, when you can make the laws, if it is too radical, then there is not enough political cover when legislation is totally transparent. If things get hard blame the minority.... (sigh).

 

Put more correctly, they are not capable of EVEN this.

 

I never supported Clinton, but the GOP has gotten more milage out of partisan rancor against him that continuing to blame the Dems for all that is wrong has become political cowardice, or at best it is only entertaining to your average Rush Limbaugh listener.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Here is my attempt: the idea that a minority party is holding the majority party hostage is laughable.

339222[/snapback]

 

If would be far more laughable if there wasn't constitutional precedent for it. Ever notice that certain things require more than a simple majority?

 

I just think that the fillibuster rules should be changed to disallow this "virtual fillibuster" crap. You want to fillibuster? Fine, get up there and read from the phone book for 12 hours. You shouldn't be able to just declare "Fillibuster!" and walk away...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If would be far more laughable if there wasn't constitutional precedent for it.  Ever notice that certain things require more than a simple majority? 

 

I just think that the fillibuster rules should be changed to disallow this "virtual fillibuster" crap.  You want to fillibuster?  Fine, get up there and read from the phone book for 12 hours.  You shouldn't be able to just declare "Fillibuster!" and walk away...

339285[/snapback]

 

Exactly. And to filibuster against even giving someone a vote on the floor of the senate is beyond absurd. I hope the filibuster is broken, it has no place in American politics, IMO.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And to filibuster against even giving someone a vote on the floor of the senate is beyond absurd. I hope the filibuster is broken, it has no place in American politics, IMO.

339293[/snapback]

 

I don't mind it. If they restored it to a literal fillibuster, it would at least keep things entertaining, like the three-drink minimum in the British House of Commons.

 

And let's face it...having senators blather from the phone book is probably a more productive use of their time than most of the political masturbation they indulge in...

[Reuben Gant]

Exactly. And to filibuster against even giving someone a vote on the floor of the senate is beyond absurd. I hope the filibuster is broken, it has no place in American politics, IMO.

339293[/snapback]

60 votes are needed to end a filibuster and force a confirmation vote.

Republicans need just 5 minority votes to end a filibuster.

Roll logs, talk to them, compromise, get them laid, anything....

Ending the filibuster rule would make 51 an unobstructed majority..

or even 50 with a vice-presidential vote. The nuclear option would make the

minority party irrelevant not just now, but when Republicans are a minority again.

 

I think the idea is bad.

[Alaska Darin]

60 votes are needed to end a filibuster and force a confirmation vote.

Republicans need just 5 minority votes to end a filibuster.

Roll logs, talk to them, compromise, get them laid, anything....

Ending the filibuster rule would make 51 an unobstructed majority..

or even 50 with a vice-presidential vote. The nuclear option would make the

minority party irrelevant not just now, but when Republicans are a minority again.

 

I think the idea is bad.

339321[/snapback]

It's probably a better idea than letting criminals get out of jail because they don't get their due process in a suitable amount of time. But we can pretend this public masturbation by the lefty politicos because they don't like conservative women judges from Texas is going to bring down our entire system of government if they get confirmed.

 

Way to take a stand, Dummycrats.

[CookieG]

It's probably a better idea than letting criminals get out of jail because they don't get their due process in a suitable amount of time.  But we can pretend this public masturbation by the lefty politicos because they don't like conservative women judges from Texas is going to bring down our entire system of government if they get confirmed.

 

Way to take a stand, Dummycrats. 

339378[/snapback]

 

 

Unless the administrative judge in the district where the nominee is to be appointed is a complete incompetent, there shouldn't be a single accused released on speedy trial grounds.

 

If the judiciary withstood the Hatch bureaucracy during the '90's, it can withstand the failure to confirm 7.

[Reuben Gant]

It's probably a better idea than letting criminals get out of jail because they don't get their due process in a suitable amount of time.  But we can pretend this public masturbation by the lefty politicos because they don't like conservative women judges from Texas is going to bring down our entire system of government if they get confirmed.

 

Way to take a stand, Dummycrats. 

339378[/snapback]

 

That's right, how can we let Bush do this?!!! (tongue firmly in cheek)

 

 

His duty as president is that "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."

 

Now if you are a constitutional constructionist you have to admit that the framers never meant a majority of the senate, or they would have put that language in the constitution.

 

As far as I know he has had neither the Advice nor Consent of the Senate in chosing some of these nominees.

 

The suggestion that it is the minority shutting down government is a bit like blaming the customer for the selection on the menu when the customer had no choice.

 

The President is not above dialogue with the Senate in this matter, and the Senate has no constitutional imperative to vote on a nominee as some have suggested.

 

If the President wants to play hardball, he can make any appointment he wants during the summer recess but these are temporary appointments.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That's right, how can we let Bush do this?!!! (tongue firmly in cheek)

His duty as president is that  "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."

 

Now if you are a constitutional constructionist you have to admit that the framers never meant a majority of the senate, or they would have put that language in the constitution.

 

339510[/snapback]

 

Literally, you're right. But technically, "consent of the Senate" could very easily and correctly interpreted as a simple majority. Of course, you could challenge in court any of the approvals on the grounds that only "advice and consent" is required of the Senate...but given that that deliberately vague phrase is also backed up by a couple centuries of legal precedent...you'd lose. The phrase is purposely vague and has been interpreted to mean for 200 years: majority approval by the Senate, strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding (and how the hell can you have a "strict constructionist interpretation" of a phrase as purposefully vague as "advice and consent", anyway?)

 

The rest of your observations were very good. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they're very good.

[ExiledInIllinois]

If would be far more laughable if there wasn't constitutional precedent for it.  Ever notice that certain things require more than a simple majority? 

 

I just think that the fillibuster rules should be changed to disallow this "virtual fillibuster" crap.  You want to fillibuster?  Fine, get up there and read from the phone book for 12 hours.  You shouldn't be able to just declare "Fillibuster!" and walk away...

339285[/snapback]

 

 

I agree. The fillibuster is a viable tool that shouldn't be eliminated. I never knew there was this "virtual fillibuster?"... Explain that and how it works?

 

Like you said... I wish they were reading from the phone book... It would have made good CSPAN viewing... How exactly would the privacy act mesh into that?

 

[Reuben Gant]

I agree.  The fillibuster is a viable tool that shouldn't be eliminated.  I never knew there was this "virtual fillibuster?"... Explain that and how it works?

 

Like you said... I wish they were reading from the phone book... It would have made good CSPAN viewing... How exactly would the privacy act mesh into that?

 

 

340413[/snapback]

I Think there was one senator from Tennesee I think that read out whiskey recipes, and from his wife's cookbook.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I agree.  The fillibuster is a viable tool that shouldn't be eliminated.  I never knew there was this "virtual fillibuster?"... Explain that and how it works?

 

Like you said... I wish they were reading from the phone book... It would have made good CSPAN viewing... How exactly would the privacy act mesh into that?

 

 

340413[/snapback]

 

"Virtual fillibuster" is my name for it (though I'm sure I heard it somewhere else before I started using it). It basically describes what they do now: they effectively just declare "Fillibuster!", and everything stops on that one particular fillibustered issue. Reasoning behind doing it that way, I suppose, being that it doesn't block other Congressional work, and they can the get around to important issues like voting on motions to congratulate Idaho's Miss Potato runner-up. I call it "virtual" simply because it isn't a real fillibuster...and it also makes it too easy. If you believe stopping business is important enough to fillibuster, you should commit yourself to wasting your time standing on the Senate floor reading nursery rhymes and "The Joy of Cooking" out loud until you drop.

 

The phone book...you're right, they probably couldn't do it these days. But when fillibusters were real fillibusters, they used to. There's probably hundreds of pages of phone numbers read into old congressional records...

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Virtual fillibuster" is my name for it (though I'm sure I heard it somewhere else before I started using it).  It basically describes what they do now: they effectively just declare "Fillibuster!", and everything stops on that one particular fillibustered issue.  Reasoning behind doing it that way, I suppose, being that it doesn't block other Congressional work, and they can the get around to important issues like voting on motions to congratulate Idaho's Miss Potato runner-up.  I call it "virtual" simply because it isn't a real fillibuster...and it also makes it too easy.  If you believe stopping business is important enough to fillibuster, you should commit yourself to wasting your time standing on the Senate floor reading nursery rhymes and "The Joy of Cooking" out loud until you drop.

 

The phone book...you're right, they probably couldn't do it these days.  But when fillibusters were real fillibusters, they used to.  There's probably hundreds of pages of phone numbers read into old congressional records...

340428[/snapback]

 

Thanks!

 

That is lame. The fillibuster tool should be used the way it was intended... AND SHOULD STOP EVERYTHING. When the legis is close (50-50), it can be a viable tool.

 

This new fillibuster is kinda like yelling at your kid then rewarding them with candy? We just can't sacrifice anything in society, can we?

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Thanks!

 

That is lame.  The fillibuster tool should be used the way it was intended... AND SHOULD STOP EVERYTHING.  When the legis is close (50-50), it can be a viable tool.

 

This new fillibuster is kinda like yelling at your kid then rewarding them with candy?  We just can't sacrifice anything in society, can we?

 

340439[/snapback]

 

That's one of the reasons that I don't particularly care what the result of this current "crisis" is...basically, if the Republicans manage to take away the "right to fillibuster", they've stripped the minority power of the ability to hold their breath 'til they turn blue rather than eat their strained peas. If it were a real fillibuster we were talking about, I might actually start to care...but no one's done that in a few decades.

 

But then, if the Republicans DO manage to strip the fillibuster from the rules...it might force things back to the old methods: block action by actually taking the floor and not relinquishing it. Unless the "nuclear option" also includes completely ditching any and all rules of order, and letting anyone who chooses shout down whoever has the floor, which would actually surprise me.

 

Or allowing the speaker to say to someone who does have the floor: "Okay, you're done. Sit down." Which wouldn't surprise me, and would be a very worrisome development...

[ExiledInIllinois]

That's one of the reasons that I don't particularly care what the result of this current "crisis" is...basically, if the Republicans manage to take away the "right to fillibuster", they've stripped the minority power of the ability to hold their breath 'til they turn blue rather than eat their strained peas.  If it were a real fillibuster we were talking about, I might actually start to care...but no one's done that in a few decades. 

 

But then, if the Republicans DO manage to strip the fillibuster from the rules...it might force things back to the old methods: block action by actually taking the floor and not relinquishing it.  Unless the "nuclear option" also includes completely ditching any and all rules of order, and letting anyone who chooses shout down whoever has the floor, which would actually surprise me.

 

Or allowing the speaker to say to someone who does have the floor: "Okay, you're done.  Sit down."  Which wouldn't surprise me, and would be a very worrisome development...

340505[/snapback]

 

Good points.